Serving homebrew at a wedding in TX... legal?

[SpanishCastleAle]

Not a lawyer and didn't stay at Holiday Inn Express last night but it seems liquor laws specify who can sell beer/wine/liquor and then protect those who can sell it. By serving homebrew at the wedding, you are preventing beer from being bought from a 'legal beer vendor'. Not sure if that makes it illegal but I wouldn't be surprised if it did.

That said, I'd just bring/serve/drink it but I'd probably try to put it all behind a bar or something, so it appears like it's just commercial kegged beer being served to most people out front.

 

[ReverseApacheMaster]

I would find a different career, sir.

That's quite a defense of your position.

 

[ACbrewer]

Has anyone looked at the BAFTE site for what the Fed's say on this? The VA law is writting with a sort of 'with in the limitations of the Federal law, we allow X". I'd think Texas would be the same way.

Speaking of the 100 gallon limit - yes 100, not 200 - well sort of. Each adult can brew 100 gallons of beer a year, more than that and BAFTE (a part of the Treasury dept btw) considers you a 'manufacturer' or 'maker' of beer with intent for sales and distribution and they want their Tax money. If you are in a household of 2 or more adults, then you can brew as a household 200 gallons per year - with the 200+ being they want their tax money.
What that means is if you are living alone, get a room mate so you can brew more!

That 100/200 limit is a Federal limit, states may set a LOWER one. I'm also unclear if it is 100 beer and 100 wine or 100 total - but most probably don't have to worry about that particular question.

As to the 'if the law doesn't ban it, then it is permitted.' Umm yes, but doesn't the law ban it when it describes 'personal or household use' and would presume that to be not an event as it later goes on to describ an event use?

I did email contact the ABC in VA about something related to opening a LHBS, and got a reply in a couple of days, so maybe and email from a one use email account would be the way to ask the question?

 

[scsi]

Speaking of the 100 gallon limit - yes 100, not 200 - well sort of.

Texas statute Title 4, Chapter 109, Subchapter B, §109.21 provides that a license or permit is not required for the manufacture of not more than 200 gallons of wine, malt liquor, or beer.

Source: http://www.homebrewersassociation.org/pages/government-affairs/statutes/texas

Sounds like 200 in Texas to me.

 

[Heckle]

Interesting and entertaining thread here! Now let me add some fuel to the fire...

1. If your not a lawyer (or one in training), then your opinions on the law are just that.
2. If the venue and caterer will allow it, that let it rest there.
3. The homebrewing laws state "personal or household use", then help your friend make it! You could try to say that both sides are joining into one household.
4. As Nike says, "Just do it". If someone has a problem or question, handle it when/if it happens.
5. You could always send an e-mail to the BATF (state or federal) and ask them if making a batch of beer for a wedding reception is allowed if it is not sold. Just say that you want to find out before you waste your time doing it. If they want details, tell them that it will be held in the neighboring wet county 6 - 8 months later.

 

[jfr1111]

Let me just preface this post by saying that I'm not a lawyer, altough I do have law school training (took the notary track).

If you look at the federal provisions, you see that the brewing of beer is permitted for personal or family use if it not in contradiction to state or local law.

If you look at the dispositions on removal of beer you see:

§ 25.206 Removal of beer.

Beer made under §25.205 may be removed from the premises where made for personal or family use including use at organized affairs, exhibitions or competitions such as homemaker's contests, tastings or judging. Beer removed under this section may not be sold or offered for sale.

This seems to indicate to me that personal and family use should be interpreted in a inclusive fashion, since the removal of beer to be served at organized affairs (such as a wedding) is permitted under federal law. Unless you apply some ridiculous logic, it'S pretty much guaranteed that beer removed from the household to be drank at an organized affair is not going to be only for the guy who produced it and his family.

Now, the state statute you have quoted do not in any shape or form apply to a wedding, unless you practice some wishful thinking or voluntary blindness. A wedding is not a competition, no matter how many scoresheets you scatter around. I'd say that unless you can spot something in state or local law that prohibits serving beer at a wedding, you're fine.

This doesn't mean that such a law like this doesn't exist or that trouble could not arise from you serving your homebrew. If the venue has no permit to serve alcohol on the premises or some company has exclusivity rights to serve their product at the venue, there might be an issue. I know that up here, if you plan on having more than X people in attendance and you plan on people drinking (yes, even free stuff), you need a permit to do so.

 

[ReverseApacheMaster]

Let me just preface this post by saying that I'm not a lawyer, altough I do have law school training (took the notary track).

If you look at the federal provisions, you see that the brewing of beer is permitted for personal or family use if it not in contradiction to state or local law.

If you look at the dispositions on removal of beer you see:

§ 25.206 Removal of beer.

Beer made under §25.205 may be removed from the premises where made for personal or family use including use at organized affairs, exhibitions or competitions such as homemaker's contests, tastings or judging. Beer removed under this section may not be sold or offered for sale.

This seems to indicate to me that personal and family use should be interpreted in a inclusive fashion, since the removal of beer to be served at organized affairs (such as a wedding) is permitted under federal law. Unless you apply some ridiculous logic, it'S pretty much guaranteed that beer removed from the household to be drank at an organized affair is not going to be only for the guy who produced it and his family.

Now, the state statute you have quoted do not in any shape or form apply to a wedding, unless you practice some wishful thinking or voluntary blindness. A wedding is not a competition, no matter how many scoresheets you scatter around. I'd say that unless you can spot something in state or local law that prohibits serving beer at a wedding, you're fine.

This doesn't mean that such a law like this doesn't exist or that trouble could not arise from you serving your homebrew. If the venue has no permit to serve alcohol on the premises or some company has exclusivity rights to serve their product at the venue, there might be an issue. I know that up here, if you plan on having more than X people in attendance and you plan on people drinking (yes, even free stuff), you need a permit to do so.

I believe the OP quotes some Texas language that the TABC must approve any public event with homebrew in writing. That is going to be the controlling restriction on the federal statute.

Rules of statutory construction would require you to interpret "organized affairs" in the context of the other items listed -- especially the examples -- all of which are clearly related to some sort of tasting or competition. It's highly unlikely that a wedding applies to either the federal or state language. That is going to place a wedding outside the boundaries of both federal and state use of homebrew, therefore it would not be permitted under law.

Liquor laws create inclusive areas of legal brewing, distribution and transportation. Manufacturing alcoholic beverages is illegal in all cases, except for those areas where both the federal and state government have expressly made it legal.

Again -- I am not suggesting whether or not the OP should bring beer to his wedding or whether it is likely the wedding would be the target of an investigation. The OP's question was whether it was legal and that's all I am speaking towards.

 

[jfr1111]

I believe the OP quotes some Texas language that the TABC must approve any public event with homebrew in writing. That is going to be the controlling restriction on the federal statute.

Rules of statutory construction would require you to interpret "organized affairs" in the context of the other items listed -- especially the examples -- all of which are clearly related to some sort of tasting or competition. It's highly unlikely that a wedding applies to either the federal or state language. That is going to place a wedding outside the boundaries of both federal and state use of homebrew, therefore it would not be permitted under law.

Liquor laws create inclusive areas of legal brewing, distribution and transportation. Manufacturing alcoholic beverages is illegal in all cases, except for those areas where both the federal and state government have expressly made it legal.

Again -- I am not suggesting whether or not the OP should bring beer to his wedding or whether it is likely the wedding would be the target of an investigation. The OP's question was whether it was legal and that's all I am speaking towards.

Not to tard this thread up more (I'm a civilist, so I know jack sh&T about how common lawyers approach written law), but you seem to be basing your conclusions almost solely on what that excerpt of state law that was given in the OP and the examples given in the fed law. I agree that a wedding is not a tasting, but what do you suggest "organized affairs" mean, since all the examples given in the definition fall into the label of "competition". The use of "such" to me indicates that the legislator didn't want to create a finite list.

But as I said, very different law backgrounds and tradition. We tend to have laws written in the broadest terms possible in order to allow them to bend and be interpreted more readily. Statutes in a common law system read very differently, plus I'm a French guy.

 

[ReverseApacheMaster]

Not to tard this thread up more (I'm a civilist, so I know jack sh&T about how common lawyers approach written law), but you seem to be basing your conclusions almost solely on what that excerpt of state law that was given in the OP and the examples given in the fed law. I agree that a wedding is not a tasting, but what do you suggest "organized affairs" mean, since all the examples given in the definition fall into the label of "competition". The use of "such" to me indicates that the legislator didn't want to create a finite list.

But as I said, very different law backgrounds and tradition. We tend to have laws written in the broadest terms possible in order to allow them to bend and be interpreted more readily. Statutes in a common law system read very differently, plus I'm a French guy.

Courts interpret statutory language based on what's collectively called rules of statutory construction, which are typically unofficial rules developed by the courts (but sometimes guided by statute) to agree upon how language should be decoded. Two of those rules apply here. One that I discussed before is that when you have an ambiguous term in a list of items included by statute it should be interpreted in the context of other things in the list. So "organized affairs" would be interpreted in the context of "exhibitions" and "competitions such as homemaker's contests, tastings or judgings." To me that says that any event under any of the three approved uses will have to be something that has a primary focus or substantial focus on homebrewing or homebrew. I doubt a wedding reception is going to fall into those terms. The second applicable rule is that when there is a list of items with no catchall phrase or word the list is inclusive of only those items listed. This is less significant but it clarifies that only those items listed can be approved exceptions.

Now, all that said, it is typically the role of an administrative agency to interpret the meaning of statutes when the execute the law of make regulations beneath the statutes and the agency could decide that organized affairs is broad enough to include family use at organized affairs such as wedding receptions, family reunions, parties, etc. (generally) so long as the interpretation is a reasonable one. I have not seen any clarification from the TABC that suggests they do in fact interpret it that way but my limited knowledge of the TABC suggests that they are likely not that friendly towards homebrewers.

 

[Rockape66]

I thought that some earlier posts on this thread stated that homebrewing was illegal in TX. Seems this isn't true. Also, I can't think of too many things that require more organization than a wedding, and a wedding would definately be a "family" use. My two cents really, Huh.
Anyway, have fun and congrats to the happy couple.
To their health and happiness, Prost.

 

[bcfzx2]

Legal or not do you really think the government or state will was time and money prosecuting you.

 

[ACbrewer]

Texas statute Title 4, Chapter 109, Subchapter B, §109.21 provides that a license or permit is not required for the manufacture of not more than 200 gallons of wine, malt liquor, or beer.

Source: http://www.homebrewersassociation.org/pages/government-affairs/statutes/texas

Sounds like 200 in Texas to me.

So in Texas they ignore the Federal level distinction of a houshold needing 2 adults for making 200 gallons of homebrew. Net result? TTB via perhaps BATFE or IRS hits the single homebrewer in TX for a fine and taxes for everything over 100 gallons, but TX doesn't care. by example - Just because you don't have income taxes to TX gov't, doesn't mean you don't have them to the Feds.

 

[SpanishCastleAle]

Just say it was a wedding gift.

"From who sir?"

"Uh....he left."

 

[mlyday]

I always wondered how anybody would know you brewed over 200, usually the evidence is "Gone". I only brew about once a month so I dont even come close.

 

[jfr1111]

^^^ People bragging about it on an internet forum

 

[emjay]

^^^ People bragging about it on an internet forum

That's hardly proof though, one could really just make the claim that they were (pathetically) boasting to impress people on the Internet